Fukushima, Japan

dbeyat45

dbeyat45

Professional Stirrer
Location
SE Queensland, Australia
There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster

Was there a nuclear disaster? Maybe not ....

Physicist Dr Kelvin Kemm is the CEO of Nuclear Africa, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa expresses an opinion. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of CFACT. Dr. Kemm received the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa:Dr Kelvin Kemm is the CEO of Nuclear Africa, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of CFACT. Dr. Kemm received the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa. - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/phy...ushima-nuclear-disaster/#sthash.MoIvZsL9.dpuf

Let us now ponder the Fukushima nuclear incident which has been in the news again lately.
Firstly let us get something clear. There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster. Total number of people killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Total injured by radiation was zero. Total private property damaged by radiation….zero. There was no nuclear disaster. What there was, was a major media feeding frenzy fuelled by the rather remote possibility that there may have been a major radiation leak.
At the time, there was media frenzy that “reactors at Fukushima may suffer a core meltdown.” Dire warnings were issued. Well the reactors did suffer a core meltdown. What happened? Nothing.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/phy...ushima-nuclear-disaster/#sthash.MoIvZsL9.dpuf


Physicist: There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster

Physicist: There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster

Physicist: There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster

There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster

There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster


http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/
 
Of course we should believe in everything the nuclear project manager says, after all he's the expert..."it was a financial disaster, not a nuclear disaster." A wise man he is, he knows what pads his wallet. :rofl:

A disaster is a disaster in my book, and lack of immediate deaths from the radiation does not make it any less of a nuclear disaster, IMO.
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2120&category=Environment
http://www.infowars.com/study-fukushima-radiation-has-already-killed-14000-americans/
 
According to AsianCorrespondent.com the death toll was five, none of which were attributed to radiation. So there WERE deaths involved BECAUSE of their being at that place at that time. Debatable, I know.

But there is also radiation still escaping from the plant. Some agencies claim that the daily doses indicate that there will NOT be any radiation-induced deaths in the future, but they seem to remain quiet on the "injury" category. Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki the long-term effects of exposure - miscarriages, tumors, etc. - will not be determined until well after these authors die of natural causes. Also to be considered is the Japanese media's ability to squash any non-complimentary stories.

There is also mention of the large amount of radioactive material released into the ocean, which will irradiate the marine life and reduce their consumption, but of course such prices that are paid rarely make it to an atomic energy devotee's spreadsheet.

There was no disaster? I'd like to know the author's definition of "disaster". Seemingly, as SeaBreeze pointed out, it is only those that include death. The total fatalities from the earthquake and tsunami number around 20,000, so I think it a bit specious of this man to point out that HIS industry wasn't to blame.
 
Warrigal said:
Reductio ad absurdum
Click to expand...

See also: Straw Man Argument

It's incomprehensible to me how some people can see the effects of radiation and still be cheerleaders for its use. God forbid we don't have enough electric to power all our electric toys, right? That we don't have enough kilowatts to keep our lights burning all day and night to ward off the Bogeymen, right?

Given a choice between death and a little inconvenience, I'll take the inconvenience, thanks.

You can have all the advances in engineering you like - there are still going to be accidents, and in the nuclear game it only takes one boo-boo to end the game. It's because of two things: human stupidity and greed, and acts of God. You'll NEVER remove those two things from the loop, no matter how hard you try.

Look at automobiles. All the engineering advances, computers in the vehicle, safety equipment, etc. - and people still kill themselves by the hundreds every day. Take that paradigm and copy it to nuclear energy.

No thanks. I'd rather pay more for my utilities when they're generated by alternative technologies than to go all Wal-Mart and pay the cheapest price for poor merchandise.
 
I think uranium should be left in the ground, if it was safe then why are they using it to build nuclear weapons to kill people?
 
nan said:
I think uranium should be left in the ground, if it was safe then why are they using it to build nuclear weapons to kill people?
Click to expand...

Blood diamonds are responsible for an estimated 3 million deaths, yet there is no shortage of people willing to have them nearby.

People are weird like that. At least science has the high moral ground here - pure science is concerned only with the advancement of Mankind, but pure science, like pure food, is becoming a thing of the past. Instead it is corrupted by corporations and politicians in their quest for money and power.

So, uranium IS safe and is a useful element when used properly. When prostituted it becomes a deadly substance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top